Criminal Act and Gun

Bauer Review This report shall contain a review and analysis of the case State v. Bauer as it occurred and transpired in 2014. There will be a summary of the issues of the case, an account of the case, the thoughts of the author of this report when it comes to the case, whether there is a clear understanding of the decision, whether there is agreement when it comes to the decision and what the American public thinks of the system.

The case centers on gun safety and whether (and to what extent) an owner of a gun could or should be held responsible when the gun involves being used in a crime of some sort, whether it be intentional or incidental or on accident. While Bauer certainly is at least somewhat culpable for what happened, many feel an affirmative and intentional act is necessary to have him charged or convicted of the crime faced. Analysis The plight of Mr.

Bauer is one that does not get a lot of sympathy with a lot of people. Indeed, a negligent act that is entirely preventable on the part of someone else can be a hard sell when it comes to ascribing intent and any sort of affirmative act.

An example that most people might think of is when a person is charged with a crime or crimes that are often treated as if they are intentional and pre-meditated even though that is not technically true would be enhanced charges due to a DUI or something else like that. In the case of Bauer, the separation between him and the criminal act is actually a lot higher.

Indeed, Bauer was charged with third degree assault due to the fact that his gun was apparently left unsecured and it led to the nine-year-old son of his girlfriend procuring said gun and then accidentally shooting a classmate. The state of Washington held that since the gun as not secured, Bauer bore criminal responsibility for what happened even though he did not himself shoot the other person, tell the child to shoot that person and was not directly involved in the incident in question.

Beyond that, he argued that the statute was unfairly vague and thus was not enforceable. After all, the gun was stolen without Bauer's knowledge and he presumably did not know what would happen. However, the state held that this was not an acceptable defense (FindLaw). The case mostly hinged on the fact that Bauer's actions or inactions were an antecedent to the shooting. Even if intent was not in action, that is technically true. However, that could be argued about a lot of cases in one way or another.

The difference here is that a gun has certain uses and capabilities. As such, comparing it to leaving a door unlocked or something unclean and someone trips does not really work in the minds of many. Beyond that, assigning liability to another person's conduct is often hard to do and is seen by many as a slippery slope. In the end, the charges against Bauer were allowed to proceed.

The author of this report feels that moving forward with at least trying the case is allowable because Bauer should have controlled and secured the gun. The scope of what guns are used for is rather narrow and one of the few things that guns are used for is to harm others, when used. There is some credence to the idea that an affirmative act did not happen but negligence.